Advertisement

Advertisement

In example, if a company that produces bath and body products with unverified additives and tests them on animals were to offer you two million dollars for continuing advertisment on your website, are you saying that you wouldn't even consider it?.

Bad example.

I will never compromise my principales for money. I prefere to be poor and keep my integrity intact or the integrity of my business.

__________________"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

No, the example was perfect to prove a point. Integrity is primarily based on character rather then temptation of wealth.

However, there are many examples of moral people selling out for outrageous amounts of money, especially visible are those in the music business. I like to believe that I wouldn't make the compromise either. Then again, I haven't recieved such immoral offer yet

It may seem I have taken this thread off subject. Not really though.
A primary subset of the topic is ethics. And, it would seem to me,
preserving privacy would be the ethical thing to do. Yet, the vast majority
of web masters choose voluntarily to cooperate with, even enable,
privacy invasion. Does that make us unethical? Or have we created an
elaborate justification which enables us to believe being co-conspirators
in the invasions of privacy is after all ethical?

As a co-relationship, and as I have pointed out several times now,
is it possible the rich have also created a number of elaborate
justifications which enable them to believe the hoarding of money and resource
sorely needed to solve pressing human needs is not unethical?

Maybe hoarding isn't unethical. I'm just asking.
I want the apologists to explain why the behaviors
cited are not unethical. Or, better yet, how you think the behavior is justified
by observing others are just as bad or worse?

I've thought about this all day.
I am attempting to clarify where I am going.
I know I irritated and appalled some with my earlier diatribe
against the rich. It really was satire.
I don't hate the rich. I just want to reason with you.

I don't have time for hate. It ruins my digestion.

__________________
Without faith you can change nothing.
You will leave the world as you found it.

As a co-relationship, and as I have pointed out several times now,
is it possible the rich have also created a number of elaborate
justifications which enable them to believe the hoarding of money and resource sorely needed to solve pressing human needs is not unethical?

Maybe hoarding isn't unethical. I'm just asking.
I want the apologists to explain why the behaviors
cited are not unethical. Or, better yet, how you think the behavior is justified
by observing others are just as bad or worse?

Without any intention of sounding apologetic, we seem to differ on the basic definition of rich. For many, the greatest wealth is their family. These people also consider themselves rich. In a more material sense, your definition of rich is in essence people hoarding/having more money than their basic needs require which effectively makes them unethical since they don't need it and other people do?

This statment suggests that money is a main goal in life, which is a sad notion. From several cases mentioned previously it is clear the wealth is but a side effect from being good at something (Gates, Jobs). How can desire to excel at something be unethical?

I know people who make minimum wage who have money it the bank, are safe secure and happy and that cash cushion protects them from the economic blows that come along. Some of them at the low point of their life were owned by the greedy bankers and surrendered 20% of all they earned to those bankers in the form of interest.

Resolve to have the baker kiss your butt and then make it happen, the day you pay off your first home you win the game with checkmate. The average person who has not purchased more home than they could afford can do that in 7-10 years without the rip off crap being sold on the internet.

This is absolutely true.

You'd be amazed at how well it is possible to live on minimum wage with the right setup. Paying off debts (and not incurring new ones) is the most important factor.

It's funny, the last time I had to deal with realtors, I didn't appreciate the attitude of one of them. I told them I was looking for a home in xyz-range, and I gave them a list of ones I had found myself. She kept saying things like, "Well, we haven't run the figures yet, we don't know how much home you can afford!" and trying to steer me to much higher-level homes.

Sorry about your commission. You can either work with me (and very little needed to be done on her part) for the small commission, or I will find someone else who will (and I did).

Good thing I did what I knew I should do, instead of letting someone talk me into doing something foolish. It took me a year to finally collect my pay from last year, which was less than I made before anyway.

The last two homes I moved into were definite "fixer-uppers" ... sweat equity is nice and builds faster than mortgage equity. But there is a great sense of satisfaction that comes with the process, along with the financial benefits. All in all, I think it's a win-win situation, at least for me.

If on the other hand I had moved into a nice, expensive house off the bat ... the first thing I'd probably have wanted to do was buy new furniture and everything else that goes with that. That's not me anyway, but I can see it would be what a person would want in that case. That would have landed me in a LOT of debt if I had done it, and not given me nearly as much satisfaction for having done it myself. And the interest would have been killer.

I have seen such unethical things in poor and middle class groups too. We cannot exactly say that only rich people are more unethical because if rich people do such unethical and it will be spread like anything and i.e. why the reason may be to have some doubts like rich are more unethical.

Without any intention of sounding apologetic, we seem to differ on the basic definition of rich. For many, the greatest wealth is their family. These people also consider themselves rich. In a more material sense, your definition of rich is in essence people hoarding/having more money than their basic needs require which effectively makes them unethical since they don't need it and other people do?

Admittedly wealth is ill defined. I stated so in an earlier post and suggested
it could be more clearly defined.

I also consider family, seeing as how I come from a large family and have
a large family of my own ( six children and fifteen going on sixteen
grandchildren ) as a source of wealth. In the context of the study however
it would seem the criteria was monetary wealth. Therein wealth seems to
be defined as a person having at least the money needed to maintain
survival plus some. And, while we may quibble over the definition of what
constitutes 'rich', the results of the study seem quite clear.
I will focus in on two.

It was found that 'rich' people were more likely to take candy from a bowl
they had been informed was intended for children than were those of more
modest means. The apologists have maintained the poor and the moderate
are equally likely to do such an unethical thing. Yet, the study states
clearly they were not. So, I would ask, "What leads the apologist to hang
their hat on thin air?"

Is this a case of 'circle the wagons' because one of our own has come under attack?
Or, are they really feeling the attack was upon themselves?
Do they know in their heart of hearts they would also have taken the children's candy?

This is a curiosity to me and I am not yet ready to let it go.
Why did all the posts previous to mine apologize for the candy takers?
Why did none of them think taking candy from children was unethical?

I have a theory and I will present it later to the apologists,
but first I would like to see how they defend their clannish behavior
if they will.

As for the second ... I have some comment on the boorish behavior of the
rich in their luxury cars at crosswalks. But ... that is for another time.
This is enough for now.

__________________
Without faith you can change nothing.
You will leave the world as you found it.

your definition of rich is in essence people hoarding/having more money than their basic needs require which effectively makes them unethical since they don't need it and other people do?

I would have to say, provisionally, yes to that question. That is what I
meant at the time. However, I have an active mind which is both analytical
and imaginative. I sometimes think to open an on line shop called
'dumb t-shirts' were I able to maintain an interest in commercialism.
I am inclined to such fleetingly profound observation and my words should
be memorialized on clothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kju385

This statment suggests that money is a main goal in life, which is a sad notion.

Yes. Sad, hard to resist and often succumbed to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kju385

From several cases mentioned previously it is clear the wealth is but a side effect from being good at something (Gates, Jobs). How can desire to excel at something be unethical?

That would be RobJones and his actual point was that some people raise
themselves up from nothing to great wealth as counterpoint to my
denial of any truth to the statement 'anyone can get rich'.
It is a common tactic of strident conservatives to attempt disproving
the general with anecdotal exceptions. In referencing Mr. Gates
Rob was entirely mistaken. Bill Gates is descended of privilege.

I sometimes think to open an on line shop called
'dumb t-shirts' were I able to maintain an interest in commercialism.
I am inclined to such fleetingly profound observation and my words should
be memorialized on clothing.

This is actually a good idea, it could make you rich

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabble

It is a common tactic of strident conservatives to attempt disproving
the general with anecdotal exceptions. In referencing Mr. Gates
Rob was entirely mistaken. Bill Gates is descended of privilege.

Right, but my point was related to Rob's example. When mr. Gates company reached let's say 2 million dollars value, should he have stopped making computers since he had at that moment enough money to live out his days in peace? Same story with mr. Jobs and Apple. Just contemplating here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabble

I have never said the desire to excel is unethical.
I do consider it unethical to live ones life in a manner that knowingly deprives others of equal opportunity to excel.

It was found that 'rich' people were more likely to take candy from a bowl
they had been informed was intended for children than were those of more
modest means.

This is not mentioned anywhere in the initial linked article. So to comment on a study that I have not read is pointless, nor will I assume the results are valid until I have reviewed the study. Post a link to this study, then I will comment.

Quote:

That would be RobJones and his actual point was that some people raise themselves up from nothing to great wealth as counterpoint to my denial of any truth to the statement 'anyone can get rich'. It is a common tactic of strident conservatives to attempt disproving the general with anecdotal exceptions.

Using the truth is a good tactic. I already posted data with source references showing that 80% of millionaire are first generation. There are about 3 million millionaires in the US. So about 2,400,000 pulled themselves up from middle or lower classes to become millionaires. That is a lot of "anecdotal exceptions".

Quote:

To wake up in the morning having 85 billion dollars is certainly as unethical as taking the childrens' candy.

King Solomon had astronomical wealth. He was at least the wealthiest person at that time in history and on par with any rich person today. Job, Abraham and David are but a few of the other that were all blessed with great wealth. Having wealth is not unethical. Acquiring wealth through through unscrupulous means is.

Quote:

I do consider it unethical to live ones life in a manner that knowingly deprives others of equal opportunity to excel.

I agree with this, but having wealth does not deprive other of the opportunity to excel. In fact, by creating wealth the rich increases the opportunities for others to excel.

While Bill Gate is not a typical rich person, he does provide a good example on some points. (Since he is human, he also has his bad points). How many jobs did Bill Gates create as he was building Microsoft? The creation of the Microsoft company in itself resulted in several millionaires. Also how many small to mid-size companies were created as a result of what Microsoft did? Yes, Bill Gate did keep much of the wealth he created, but much more wealth was was spread across thousands and thousands of people.

Using the truth is a good tactic. I already posted data with source references showing that 80% of millionaire are first generation. There are about 3 million millionaires in the US. So about 2,400,000 pulled themselves up from middle or lower classes to become millionaires. That is a lot of "anecdotal exceptions".

You need to provide references on this because I am not sure that 2.4k millionaires are coming from lower class. As far as the middle class you have to define precisely how much these people are making because this is very controversial.

Some people define themselves middle class as $250,000 Or $500,000 Or $1 million.

Everything above $100,000 is upper class for me, so let's see if we are talking about the same thing here.

__________________"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

True - the definition of middle class is fluid. But the definition of a millionaire is set (millionaire has a net worth of 1 million dollars US). Given how few went to private school we can exclude them coming from families with $500,000 or 1M incomes. Also included in the study was the percentage that receive financial gifts from their parents: 7%.

All the information about millionaire come from the book "The Millionaire Next Door". It discusses in depth how millionaire earned their wealth and how they spend it. Include throughout the book are examples of individuals starting with next to nothing and working their way up. All conclusion are support by studies and analytic data.

FYI - That not 2.4k it's 2.4M, as in 2.4 million people coming from the non-millionaire class.

True - the definition of middle class is fluid. But the definition of a millionaire is set (millionaire has a net worth of 1 million dollars US). Given how few went to private school we can exclude them coming from families with $500,000 or 1M incomes. Also included in the study was the percentage that receive financial gifts from their parents: 7%.

All the information about millionaire come from the book "The Millionaire Next Door". It discusses in depth how millionaire earned their wealth and how they spend it. Include throughout the book are examples of individuals starting with next to nothing and working their way up. All conclusion are support by studies and analytic data.

FYI - That not 2.4k it's 2.4M, as in 2.4 million people coming from the non-millionaire class.

We try to find some subjects we can discuss with free information accessible to everybody on internet. If you take for references a book with a specific author, it doesn't give any other choice than buying the book. If we need to buy a book everytime we have a subject that may cost time and money

__________________"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."